And just like that, the NFL admits the "Snow Job" game was a joke, with Walt Coleman throwing the game so his team's (Coleman is a Chief's fan) nemesis would not continue deep in the playoffs. Apparently two hands on the football has always been a fumble, except for one snowy night in New England.

__________________If you only know what you hear or read in the media,
you really don't know much.

'eh, just like the infamous Renfro non-catch that would have been a TD if the league had replay or Don Beebe stepping out of bounds in that Bills game, sometimes you just have to let stuff go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rey

Espn did a little thing on this yesterday. Those Oakland players are still pissed.

So are the Oakland fans. You see, there is a difference between Renfro's non-catch or Beebe stepping out of bounds, because those were just missed plays. What pisses off Raider fans, coaches, former GMs, etc., is the right call was made, then the Chief-fan ref reversed it without indisputable evidence, turning the proper call into a bad call that stole a game and probable SB appearance and win from the Raiders. Not to mention that is the third time the Raiders have been eliminated from the playoffs on questionable calls, i.e., Immaculate Deception, Rob Lytle Fumble, and the Snow Job. That could be as many as three more Lombardi's in the trophy case that aren't there because of questionable officiating.

You know, I called the Snow-Job game, in a way. I was telling some other AFCW fan how the NFL would figure a way to screw the Raiders to prevent them from making it to the SB. That person laughed and asked me what was going to happen, like I was crazy or something. I told them I didn't know, but to just watch the game. Sure enough, the "tuck" happened. Raider fans are used to it, and know it stems from the League's dislike of Al Davis. We're hoping in the next decade or two that things will change and the Raiders will be able to compete on a level playing field.

Hey, if it was a screw-up like the Rob Lytle fumble it would be one thing, but Coleman reversed his own call to then change the game's outcome. So what gets us so pissed is we don't mind being beaten fair-and-square, but we can't stand being cheated out of a playoff win.

__________________If you only know what you hear or read in the media,
you really don't know much.

It will go down now in history as one of the great sports highway robberies of alltime.

Was joke then, and even more of a joke now. I don't blame Raider players for being pissed today. They got royally screwed and now the NFL basically admitted it.

Well there are more than just Raiders fans who should be pissed.

EVERY TUCK CALL SINCE THEN has screwed defenses. Has anybody calculated how many defenses since that Snow Job have been ****ed over by the Tuck Rule? That'd be a great Grantland article topic.

I know of one: Last season's Texans-Colts game in Indy, IIRC, where Luck fumbled the **** out of a ball.....and the refs ruled it a Tuck Rule situation. We lost HFA because of that, since it would have been a turnover that gave us the ball about 20 yards from the EZ. That game could have changed dramatically right there. But no. ****ing Tuck Rule.

I guess I'm glad it's finally gone, but it's cost a lot of teams over the years. Not just Oakland.

After the way they did the Luck call (the ball clearly goes away from the LOS when it leaves his hand) not at least calling it a live ball as a backwards pass they had to change the rule. Otherwise the sack would be virtually eliminated. QBs would be taught this offseason that if they are being sacked to start the tuck motion and spike the ball at their feet. At least 80% of sacks would turn into incompletions. I was sort of looking forward to this gross abuse of a stupid rule, in a sick sort of way.

EVERY TUCK CALL SINCE THEN has screwed defenses. Has anybody calculated how many defenses since that Snow Job have been ****ed over by the Tuck Rule? That'd be a great Grantland article topic.

I know of one: Last season's Texans-Colts game in Indy, IIRC, where Luck fumbled the **** out of a ball.....and the refs ruled it a Tuck Rule situation. We lost HFA because of that, since it would have been a turnover that gave us the ball about 20 yards from the EZ. That game could have changed dramatically right there. But no. ****ing Tuck Rule.

I guess I'm glad it's finally gone, but it's cost a lot of teams over the years. Not just Oakland.

Yeah, don't kid yourself...We lost HFA because the Texans stunk the last six games of the season.

EVERY TUCK CALL SINCE THEN has screwed defenses. Has anybody calculated how many defenses since that Snow Job have been ****ed over by the Tuck Rule? That'd be a great Grantland article topic.

I know of one: Last season's Texans-Colts game in Indy, IIRC, where Luck fumbled the **** out of a ball.....and the refs ruled it a Tuck Rule situation. We lost HFA because of that, since it would have been a turnover that gave us the ball about 20 yards from the EZ. That game could have changed dramatically right there. But no. ****ing Tuck Rule.

I guess I'm glad it's finally gone, but it's cost a lot of teams over the years. Not just Oakland.

No doubt - can just refer to this play as the original cancer cell before it spread.

We'll simply never know where history would have taken those Pats teams if not for that bull****.

__________________
When I lost you honey sometimes, I think I lost my guts too....

So are the Oakland fans. You see, there is a difference between Renfro's non-catch or Beebe stepping out of bounds, because those were just missed plays. What pisses off Raider fans, coaches, former GMs, etc., is the right call was made, then the Chief-fan ref reversed it without indisputable evidence, turning the proper call into a bad call that stole a game and probable SB appearance and win from the Raiders.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but you're lumping the Renfro catch into a missed play, which is not really true. It's a lot closer to the Tuck Rule incident, because the refs were clearly not acting impartially. Their motivation was different, but they still made a bad call because of outside influences. Every ref on that squad has since admitted it was a bad call except for the head guy.

__________________Hey O'Brien: "How do you tell a guy who is used to catching 80 balls a year that he was going to catch 40?"... You jackass.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but you're lumping the Renfro catch into a missed play, which is not really true. It's a lot closer to the Tuck Rule incident, because the refs were clearly not acting impartially. Their motivation was different, but they still made a bad call because of outside influences. Every ref on that squad has since admitted it was a bad call except for the head guy.

I'll have to go back and look into the Renfro non-catch again, it's been a long time.

You know what really pisses off the Raider fans? It is that nobody seemed to care. It was as if the overall mood was "it happened to Oakland and not my team, so no big deal." People should have been furious the NFL could shrug off such a call, spin it, and be fine putting their stamp of approval on a tainted game. Every fan instead of thinking "it was only Oakland", should have been thinking "what if the NFL did that to my team." Nobody should have stood for it.

Update: Yeah, Renfro's was a TD. I think the big difference is that instant replay could have corrected that call. In the Snow Job game, instant replay was used to throw the game.

__________________If you only know what you hear or read in the media,
you really don't know much.

We always talk about how a few plays here and there made the Ravens Super Bowl champs....well, even though we were trying to piss HFA away on our own, had THAT call fallen our way (since NOW the NFL says it will) then that game is winnable. Easily.

After that call, you could see the depression set in on our defense. And our ****ing offense couldn't help out our defense to save its life. Our defense produces a turnover, deep inside Indy's end of the field, and the call gets ruled Tuck Rule. Big swing right there.

Who knows where it goes if we snuck HFA away from that game?

Don't get me wrong, I was already predicting Gary couldn't win 1 out of the final 2 games. Got flamed for it too. But that Tuck Rule situation was right when we were trying to turn the tide of that final game. It was doable right there.

...turning the proper call into a bad call that stole a game and probable SB appearance and win from the Raiders.

How do you figure that? Had the Raider won, they would have traveled to Pittsburgh to face a Steelers team that was 1st in defense and 3rd in offense, and had just dominated the previous Super Bowl winner, Baltimore, in the divisional round. Had Oakland won that game, they would have faced the Greatest Show on Turf. The Rams, the #1 offense and #3 defense, had led the league in point differential at 14.4.

There was nothing probable about the Pats AFC Championship or Super Bowl XXXVI win. They were double digit underdogs in both games (+10 @ Pittsburgh, +14 vs St. Louis). The Raiders would have been big underdogs in both of those games, as well.

Update: Yeah, Renfro's was a TD. I think the big difference is that instant replay could have corrected that call. In the Snow Job game, instant replay was used to throw the game.

That it was a TD is incidental to the fact that the refs made the call they did because they were afraid of the pandemonium that would ensue. They have almost all admitted over the years that they made that call based on the crowd. So that's not the same thing as the Tuck Rule call, obviously, but it's another example of the refs allowing outside influences to affect their call. In the Tuck Rule call, it was opposing fandom, which is also awful.

By the way, did that ref get fired?

__________________Hey O'Brien: "How do you tell a guy who is used to catching 80 balls a year that he was going to catch 40?"... You jackass.

Not to mention that is the third time the Raiders have been eliminated from the playoffs on questionable calls, i.e., Immaculate Deception, Rob Lytle Fumble, and the Snow Job.

NFL Films did an episode of "A Football Life" on the Immaculate Reception. John Madden is still so pissed to this day that he refused to be interviewed for the story.

The Raiders and Oilers are/were sort of kindred spirits as the red headed AFL step-children of the NFL. Both had hard headed owners who rubbed folks the wrong way and influenced football decisions often to the detriment of their teams. At least Al got some Super Bowl championships and attended several more. While ol' Bud is still the bridesmaid, never the bride.

__________________"Football is only a diversion." ~ Houston Texans, Inc.

NFL Films did an episode of "A Football Life" on the Immaculate Reception. John Madden is still so pissed to this day that he refused to be interviewed for the story.

The Raiders and Oilers are/were sort of kindred spirits as the red headed AFL step-children of the NFL. Both had hard headed owners who rubbed folks the wrong way and influenced football decisions often to the detriment of their teams. At least Al got some Super Bowl championships and attended several more. While ol' Bud is still the bridesmaid, never the bride.

At the time of the Immaculate Reception, Al Davis was a tremendous asset to his team, and big part of why (as the show you talked about mentioned), the Raiders went on to have the best record in the NFL over the 10 years following that game. Davis came from a coaching and scouting background, and brought a genuine innovation to the game. He was the Raiders Head Coach and GM before he ever became their owner. Bud's just a guy who had a lot of money, and was a turd his entire life(Way before he had the excuse of being old to justify it).

Al definitely became an embarrassment in later years, but to paint the Al Davis of the 70's and 80's with the same brush as Bud Adams is way off in my opinion.

__________________
Being a D-bag and being factually correct are not in any way mutually exclusive!

At the time of the Immaculate Reception, Al Davis was a tremendous asset to his team, and big part of why (as the show you talked about mentioned), the Raiders went on to have the best record in the NFL over the 10 years following that game. Davis came from a coaching and scouting background, and brought a genuine innovation to the game. He was the Raiders Head Coach and GM before he ever became their owner. Bud's just a guy who had a lot of money, and was a turd his entire life(Way before he had the excuse of being old to justify it).

Al definitely became an embarrassment in later years, but to paint the Al Davis of the 70's and 80's with the same brush as Bud Adams is way off in my opinion.

I think you missed my point.

I was not comparing the two owners. Al was clearly a football man and his many years of success shows it. But don't get too carried away with Al Davis. John Madden was behind the Raiders success in the '70's, and even when Tom Flores became HC after Madden retired he inherited a team that Madden built. (btw, Al was the HC at one point - 1963-65 - but never went to the playoffs.)

My point was that both franchises have always been sort of black sheep of the NFL ever since the merger. Both owners did things to piss off the old guard of the NFL, well before the merger, and I think that's been reflected over the years in the NFL's attitude toward each owner, franchise, and even cities to some extent.

I respect Al Davis. I do not respect Bud Adams. Watch the episode of "A Football Life" about Al Davis. It's fantastic, so it's kind of funny that you assume I'm painting both with the same brush, because that's not something I would ever intentionally do.

__________________"Football is only a diversion." ~ Houston Texans, Inc.

That it was a TD is incidental to the fact that the refs made the call they did because they were afraid of the pandemonium that would ensue. They have almost all admitted over the years that they made that call based on the crowd. So that's not the same thing as the Tuck Rule call, obviously, but it's another example of the refs allowing outside influences to affect their call. In the Tuck Rule call, it was opposing fandom, which is also awful.

By the way, did that ref get fired?

That would be more similar to the Immaculate Deception, where the refs ruled TD after watching the replay and inquiring about available security to protect them if they ruled against the Steelers. Rumor has it that once they found out there would be no extra security to protect them, they ruled it a TD. Personally, I don't think there ever was a clear view that showed definitively one way or the other. That's why the Immaculate Deception doesn't bother me like the Rob Lytle fumble or the Snow Job.

No, Walt Coleman did not get fired. In fact, he was rewarded the Conference Championship Game in 2003. You forget, we're talking about the Raiders and the League here.

I did find this gem on Coleman that you as a Texans fan can relate to:

Quote:

2012 Lions v. Texans game

Coleman officiated the 2012 Thanksgiving game between the Houston Texans and Detroit Lions. With 6:50 left in the third quarter, the Texans had the ball on their own 19-yard line, trailing the Lions 24-14. On second down, the ball was handed to Houston running back Justin Forsett. Replays clearly indicated that Forsett was down by contact after a short gain,[20] but no whistle was blown and Forsett ended getting back up to run for an 81-yard touchdown.[21] However, Detroit head coach Jim Schwartz immediately threw the challenge flag after the scoring play, which negated the automatic review that would have overturned the call.[22] The Texans ended up winning the game in overtime. Both Mike Florio of ProFootballtalk and Mike Pereira, who now is a consultant with Fox Sports, later wrote that they would favor a rule change to make this just a 15-yard penalty.[21][22] The day after the game, NFL director of football operations Ray Anderson said that the league competition committee will likely discuss the rule during the ensuing off-season.[23] New York Giants co-owner John Mara, who originally was a proponent of the "red-flag-no-review" rule after an incident in a 2010 game against the Washington Redskins, then said to USA Today that he plans submit the rule change proposal to the competition committee.

__________________If you only know what you hear or read in the media,
you really don't know much.